As open access journal we are read by clinicians and patients alike and have (as all JMIR journals) a focus on readable and applied science reporting the design and evaluation of health innovations and emerging technologies. We publish original research, viewpoints, and reviews (both literature reviews and medical device/technology/app reviews).

During a limited period of time, there are no fees to publish in this journal. Articles are carfully copyedited and XML-tagged, ready for submission in PubMed Central.

Authors List:

Abstract:

Background: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program logs surgical site infections (SSIs) as the most common cause of unplanned postoperative readmission for a variety of surgical interventions. Hospitals are making significant efforts preoperatively and postoperatively to reduce SSIs and improve care. Telemedicine, defined as using remote technology to implement health care, has the potential to improve outcomes across a wide range of parameters, including reducing SSIs. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and user satisfaction of two automated messaging systems, EpxDecolonization and EpxWound, to improve perioperative care in a quality improvement project for patients undergoing total joint replacement. Methods: We designed two automated text messaging and calling systems named EpxDecolonization, which reminded patients of their preoperative decolonization protocol, and EpxWound, which monitored pain, wound, and fever status postoperatively. Daily patient responses were recorded and a post-usage survey was sent out to participants to assess satisfaction with the systems. Results: Over the 40-week study period, 638 and 642 patients were enrolled in EpxDecolonization (a preoperative decolonization reminder) and EpxWound (a postoperative surgical site infection telemonitoring system), respectively. Patients could be enrolled in either or both EpxDecolonization and EpxWound, with the default option being dual enrollment. The proportion of sessions responded to was 85.2% for EpxDecolonization and 78.4% for EpxWound. Of the 1280 patients prescribed EpxWound and EpxDecolonization, 821 (64.14%) fully completed the postoperative system satisfaction survey. The median survey score (scale 1-9) was 9 for patient-rated overall care and 8 for whether the telemonitoring systems improved patient communication with providers. The majority of patients (69.0%, 566/821) indicated that the systems sent out an ideal number of messages (not too many, not too few). Conclusions: EpxDecolonization and EpxWound demonstrated high response rates and improved patient-rated communication with providers. These preliminary data suggest that these systems are well tolerated and potentially beneficial to both patients and providers. The systems have the potential to improve both patient satisfaction scores and compliance with preoperative protocols and postoperative wound monitoring. Future efforts will focus on testing the sensitivity and specificity of alerts generated by each system and on demonstrating the ability of these systems to improve clinical quality metrics with more authoritative data.